Quote
Hope
Vic-Luc,
The "doctor" I was referring to was the one I needed therapy FOR. He was up to his eyeballs in Landmark Education and used their "technology" in his practice without informing his patients he was doing. In the aftermath, I went to a PhD in Psych, who did not know anything about Landmark (except that it is helpful for some people, she said). I wasted a short amount of time with her before I found two wonderful MLSWs who specialized in cults and their ilk.
This story may or may not have any relation to the types of unethical practices used by some psychologists as mentioned on this thread, but I thought it was interesting that there is actually some governing body one could complain to.
[
www.canada.com]
Quote
In 1998, Larre registered as a psychologist in B.C.
His work, however, has prompted a number of complaints to the B.C. College of Psychologists in recent years, court documents show. There were no allegations of abuse, but individuals and other psychologists have questioned his methods and the quality of his work. Last November, the college held an extraordinary hearing and suspended his registration pending a disciplinary hearing because it felt he posed "an immediate risk to the public." The public, however, was never told of that at the time.
The B.C. law that governs most, and soon all, recognized health professions states that it is the duty of a college to serve and protect the public. But the Health Professions Act places no onus on colleges to publish disciplinary decisions in a timely manner, as required in other jurisdictions. Instead, colleges are required only to let a member of the public "inspect" the registry, which shows whether psychologists have ever had their registrations suspended or revoked or had conditions or limitations placed on their registrations.
I wonder if the self identified psychologists of landmark education or other LGAT groups can be formally disciplined for their involvement in practices that prove a danger to the public?